Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.

At 9/15/2011 5:47:56 PM, sadolite wrote:Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

Technically, that is false, they pay in 2.7% (as of 2008), which is down from 3.5% in 2002, and 4.0% in 1999. However, the rich are only now starting to pay what they use to.

In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.4%, the following year (Thanks to Bush), it dropped to 33.9%. It slowly began to climb its way back up as the rich/poor gap was expanding, to 40.4% in 2007, before beginning to drop again (because of the economic situation).

If you want the poor to be able to pay taxes, they need to have income to pay.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

"Fair" should not be measured from $0, it should be measured from free income (meaning after basic necessities are paid for). Then, we find that the bottom 50% are on average, living below the poverty line, and still chipping in a marginal amount.

I know stories from the bible are not going to resonate with too many members on this forum, but please learn from the lesson of the widow's mite.

At 9/15/2011 5:47:56 PM, sadolite wrote:Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

Technically, that is false, they pay in 2.7% (as of 2008), which is down from 3.5% in 2002, and 4.0% in 1999. However, the rich are only now starting to pay what they use to.

In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.4%, the following year (Thanks to Bush), it dropped to 33.9%. It slowly began to climb its way back up as the rich/poor gap was expanding, to 40.4% in 2007, before beginning to drop again (because of the economic situation).

If you want the poor to be able to pay taxes, they need to have income to pay.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

"Fair" should not be measured from $0, it should be measured from free income (meaning after basic necessities are paid for). Then, we find that the bottom 50% are on average, living below the poverty line, and still chipping in a marginal amount.

I know stories from the bible are not going to resonate with too many members on this forum, but please learn from the lesson of the widow's mite.

At 9/15/2011 5:47:56 PM, sadolite wrote:Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

Technically, that is false, they pay in 2.7% (as of 2008), which is down from 3.5% in 2002, and 4.0% in 1999. However, the rich are only now starting to pay what they use to.

In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.4%, the following year (Thanks to Bush), it dropped to 33.9%. It slowly began to climb its way back up as the rich/poor gap was expanding, to 40.4% in 2007, before beginning to drop again (because of the economic situation).

If you want the poor to be able to pay taxes, they need to have income to pay.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

"Fair" should not be measured from $0, it should be measured from free income (meaning after basic necessities are paid for). Then, we find that the bottom 50% are on average, living below the poverty line, and still chipping in a marginal amount.

I know stories from the bible are not going to resonate with too many members on this forum, but please learn from the lesson of the widow's mite.

In 2007, there were 70,535,000 tax returns filed for the bottom 50% [1], and those bottom 50% had a total income of $1,078,000,000,000 [1]. Meaning that the average income for a bottom 50%er was only $15,283.19.

The poverty line for a family of 4 in the US is $21,756.00 a year, while for a family of 3, it is only $17,268.00 (please note, that the poverty numbers are for 2009, while the income is for 2007).

So yes, the average is below that line. What you're probably use to looking at is the threshold number, not the average. The threshold for the bottom 50% is something like $33,000.00.

OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

My calculations were based on filed tax returns, not people, so children, stay-at-home mothers, would not be on there, not unless they are filing seperate from their spouses, which would be dumb because that would raise their spouses taxes.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

Do I need to pull out statistics that show that poor people have, on average, more children?

At 9/15/2011 5:47:56 PM, sadolite wrote:Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

Technically, that is false, they pay in 2.7% (as of 2008), which is down from 3.5% in 2002, and 4.0% in 1999. However, the rich are only now starting to pay what they use to.

In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.4%, the following year (Thanks to Bush), it dropped to 33.9%. It slowly began to climb its way back up as the rich/poor gap was expanding, to 40.4% in 2007, before beginning to drop again (because of the economic situation).

If you want the poor to be able to pay taxes, they need to have income to pay.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

"Fair" should not be measured from $0, it should be measured from free income (meaning after basic necessities are paid for). Then, we find that the bottom 50% are on average, living below the poverty line, and still chipping in a marginal amount.

I know stories from the bible are not going to resonate with too many members on this forum, but please learn from the lesson of the widow's mite.

In 2007, there were 70,535,000 tax returns filed for the bottom 50% [1], and those bottom 50% had a total income of $1,078,000,000,000 [1]. Meaning that the average income for a bottom 50%er was only $15,283.19.

The poverty line for a family of 4 in the US is $21,756.00 a year, while for a family of 3, it is only $17,268.00 (please note, that the poverty numbers are for 2009, while the income is for 2007).

So yes, the average is below that line. What you're probably use to looking at is the threshold number, not the average. The threshold for the bottom 50% is something like $33,000.00.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

My calculations were based on filed tax returns, not people, so children, stay-at-home mothers, would not be on there, not unless they are filing seperate from their spouses, which would be dumb because that would raise their spouses taxes.

Alright, but college students are definitely on the list along with teens and those in their 20s still living with their parents.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

My calculations were based on filed tax returns, not people, so children, stay-at-home mothers, would not be on there, not unless they are filing seperate from their spouses, which would be dumb because that would raise their spouses taxes.

Alright, but college students are definitely on the list along with teens and those in their 20s still living with their parents.

Working college students. Not all work. And many that do work part time, which would likely place them in the poverty limits anyway.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

My calculations were based on filed tax returns, not people, so children, stay-at-home mothers, would not be on there, not unless they are filing seperate from their spouses, which would be dumb because that would raise their spouses taxes.

Alright, but college students are definitely on the list along with teens and those in their 20s still living with their parents.

Working college students. Not all work. And many that do work part time, which would likely place them in the poverty limits anyway.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

My calculations were based on filed tax returns, not people, so children, stay-at-home mothers, would not be on there, not unless they are filing seperate from their spouses, which would be dumb because that would raise their spouses taxes.

Alright, but college students are definitely on the list along with teens and those in their 20s still living with their parents.

Working college students. Not all work. And many that do work part time, which would likely place them in the poverty limits anyway.

Many that work part time are supported by their parents.

So if they file their own tax return, only their income counts (if their parents are paying for their college, that does not count as income for them to pay taxes on). So if they are only making $300 every two weeks, that is only $7,200 a year, and technically in poverty.

At 9/16/2011 3:34:05 PM, mongeese wrote:OreEle, just because the average income for the bottom 50% is below the poverty line for three-member households doesn't mean that the average person below 50% is in poverty. I would guess that a large number of wage earners in the bottom 50% are single with no children, and thus have a much lower poverty line.

I would also say many of those below the average income bracket include those who don't earn income. Children, retirees, stay-home mothers, etc.

My calculations were based on filed tax returns, not people, so children, stay-at-home mothers, would not be on there, not unless they are filing seperate from their spouses, which would be dumb because that would raise their spouses taxes.

Alright, but college students are definitely on the list along with teens and those in their 20s still living with their parents.

Working college students. Not all work. And many that do work part time, which would likely place them in the poverty limits anyway.

Many that work part time are supported by their parents.

So if they file their own tax return, only their income counts (if their parents are paying for their college, that does not count as income for them to pay taxes on). So if they are only making $300 every two weeks, that is only $7,200 a year, and technically in poverty.

Not really. College expenses cover a lot. Room and board, dining plan, gym, and even health services.

Even if a student doesn't rely on parents, he/she still has loans. It's not really poverty.

At 9/15/2011 5:47:56 PM, sadolite wrote:Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

Technically, that is false, they pay in 2.7% (as of 2008), which is down from 3.5% in 2002, and 4.0% in 1999. However, the rich are only now starting to pay what they use to.

In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.4%, the following year (Thanks to Bush), it dropped to 33.9%. It slowly began to climb its way back up as the rich/poor gap was expanding, to 40.4% in 2007, before beginning to drop again (because of the economic situation).

If you want the poor to be able to pay taxes, they need to have income to pay.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

"Fair" should not be measured from $0, it should be measured from free income (meaning after basic necessities are paid for). Then, we find that the bottom 50% are on average, living below the poverty line, and still chipping in a marginal amount.

I know stories from the bible are not going to resonate with too many members on this forum, but please learn from the lesson of the widow's mite.

"You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.'

I am not talking about the past and it is quite irrelevant. The tax code changes every year to supposedly make things fair. If you file a legal tax return you have paid your fair share. I can assure you that if you cheat on your taxes and get caught they will say "You are not paying your fair share of taxes."

Still looking for that formula that defines what a fair share of taxes is though. Alot of blather about how many people are poor though, but no formula that a business can use to predict future tax burdens so it can make wise decisions on weather to sit on things or consider expanding. Nothing but uncertainty as far as the eye can see.

My original post has not been edited.

Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.

At 9/15/2011 5:47:56 PM, sadolite wrote:Every person business or corporation that files an income tax return and fills it out properly and takes advantage of all allowable deductions, pays their fare share of taxes. Saying people who play by the rules, don't pay their fare share is a bald face lie regardless of how much money they make.

You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.

The bottom 50% of wage earners are the ones who don't pay their fare share. They don't pay anything and get it all back at the end of the year or get back more than they pay in.

Technically, that is false, they pay in 2.7% (as of 2008), which is down from 3.5% in 2002, and 4.0% in 1999. However, the rich are only now starting to pay what they use to.

In 2000, the top 1% paid 37.4%, the following year (Thanks to Bush), it dropped to 33.9%. It slowly began to climb its way back up as the rich/poor gap was expanding, to 40.4% in 2007, before beginning to drop again (because of the economic situation).

If you want the poor to be able to pay taxes, they need to have income to pay.

I defy anyone using sources from gov't to define or show any kind of formula that tells or shows what a "Fair share of taxes is" in any income bracket, preferably the lower ones. 50% of all wage earners and 100% of all solvent businesses pay 96% of all federal income taxes. You people in the bottom 50% of wage earners better be careful what you ask for, you just might get to pay "your" fair share.

"Fair" should not be measured from $0, it should be measured from free income (meaning after basic necessities are paid for). Then, we find that the bottom 50% are on average, living below the poverty line, and still chipping in a marginal amount.

I know stories from the bible are not going to resonate with too many members on this forum, but please learn from the lesson of the widow's mite.

"You're making the faulty assumption that the rules, as currently written, are fair. The rules use to be written that women couldn't vote, and blacks weren't people. Just because they were the rules doesn't mean that they were fair.'

I am not talking about the past and it is quite irrelevant. The tax code changes every year to supposedly make things fair. If you file a legal tax return you have paid your fair share. I can assure you that if you cheat on your taxes and get caught they will say "You are not paying your fair share of taxes."

Just because it is law does not mean it is "fair." for example, if we raise the high end tax rate to 85%, does that suddenly mean that 85% is "fair"?

Still looking for that formula that defines what a fair share of taxes is though. Alot of blather about how many people are poor though, but no formula that a business can use to predict future tax burdens so it can make wise decisions on weather to sit on things or consider expanding. Nothing but uncertainty as far as the eye can see.

The uncertainty is caused by the republicans (namely, it is caused by the refusal of both sides to work together, but since the democrats have been the ones giving in consistently to the point that liberals are pissed at Obama for giving in so much, the side that is not comprimising and so causing the stalls is the republicans).

There is no "magic" formula, since the notion of "fair" is subjective on a personal level.

If someone in high school or college has a part time job, the law requires that taxes be withheld. Withholding is also done from various sources of small income, like certain prize winnings. The only way to get the withholding refunded is to file a tax return, even if you pay no taxes. That's true even if they are counted as dependents on someone else's return. For that reason the number of returns is not a good measure, it should be based upon household income.

The flat tax proposals usually have a deduction of $10,000 per person, with a flat percentage above that.

"Fairness" is subjective, but that does not stop President Obama and his supporters fro claiming the rich are not paying their fair share. Anyone who makes that claim is obliged to say what they think is "fair." Currently, the top 1% of earners pay 38% of the federal taxes. So how much should they pay?

Warren Buffett is rich and gets his income from capital gains, which are taxed at 15%. There are only 400 rich people in the country who receive only capital gains, and capital gains are the product of companies that are paying taxes. Raising capital gains tax results in people keeping stocks they would otherwise sell, because no gain is taxed until it is realized. That leads to market inefficiency because it discourages capital flow into new ventures. In general, investors flee to loopholes which avoid taxes through a loss of economic efficiency.

At 9/20/2011 2:46:59 PM, RoyLatham wrote:If someone in high school or college has a part time job, the law requires that taxes be withheld. Withholding is also done from various sources of small income, like certain prize winnings. The only way to get the withholding refunded is to file a tax return, even if you pay no taxes. That's true even if they are counted as dependents on someone else's return. For that reason the number of returns is not a good measure, it should be based upon household income.

The flat tax proposals usually have a deduction of $10,000 per person, with a flat percentage above that.

"Fairness" is subjective, but that does not stop President Obama and his supporters fro claiming the rich are not paying their fair share. Anyone who makes that claim is obliged to say what they think is "fair." Currently, the top 1% of earners pay 38% of the federal taxes. So how much should they pay?

Warren Buffett is rich and gets his income from capital gains, which are taxed at 15%. There are only 400 rich people in the country who receive only capital gains, and capital gains are the product of companies that are paying taxes. Raising capital gains tax results in people keeping stocks they would otherwise sell, because no gain is taxed until it is realized. That leads to market inefficiency because it discourages capital flow into new ventures. In general, investors flee to loopholes which avoid taxes through a loss of economic efficiency.

It even gets more skewed than that when you move down the numbers so that .2% pay 27% of all the income taxes.